Garcia v. Ray's Smoothies Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-02234
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Garcia v. Ray’s Smoothies, Judge Aaron ordered damages filings after a partial default judgment, requiring clarification of overtime, interest, and fees.
Maria Garcia must clarify her NYLL overtime position, correct her damages submission, and provide fee or cost documentation if she seeks those amounts. Ray’s Smoothies Inc. and the other defendants may respond to her submissions.
What happened
Maria Garcia sued Ray’s Smoothies Inc. and others under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. An earlier order granted default judgment on her federal overtime claim and certain state wage-notice and wage-statement claims, but denied default judgment on her federal minimum-wage claim and did not grant judgment on her state overtime claim.
The court found that Garcia’s damages spreadsheet improperly included her denied minimum-wage claim and that she had not filed the required billing records. Garcia also stated that she could not recover both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest on her federal overtime claim, while indicating that she might seek both for state-law claims.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered Garcia to clarify whether she will seek judgment on the state overtime claim, file a spreadsheet limited to federal overtime damages, and submit billing records and any proof of costs if she seeks those amounts. She must serve the filings on the defendants, who may respond; the court intends to decide the damages inquiry from written submissions unless a party explains why a hearing is needed.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. Ray's Smoothies Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-02234
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 15, 2025
Background
Maria Garcia moved for a default judgment on claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). The court had previously granted default judgment on Garcia’s FLSA overtime claim and her NYLL claims concerning failure to provide a wage notice and accurate wage statements. It denied default judgment on her FLSA minimum-wage claim. The earlier order did not grant default judgment on Garcia’s NYLL overtime claim and did not address that claim.
The court had directed Garcia to submit a damages spreadsheet for the FLSA overtime claim, contemporaneous billing records showing the time spent and hourly rate for attorney-fee purposes, and a letter addressing whether she sought both liquidated damages and prejudgment interest. Garcia stated that she could not recover both types of damages on the FLSA claim, but said she might seek prejudgment interest in addition to liquidated damages on her NYLL claims. Her spreadsheet included damages for the FLSA minimum-wage claim even though default judgment on that claim had been denied, and she did not file the required billing records.
Order
The court ordered Garcia, by February 21, 2025, to file a letter stating whether she intends to seek judgment on her NYLL overtime claim and explaining how and when she would seek that relief. If she does not intend to do so, she must state whether she wants the court to recommend prejudgment interest or liquidated damages.
The court also ordered Garcia to file a damages spreadsheet calculating only damages for her FLSA overtime claim and to email a native version of the spreadsheet to chambers. If she continues to seek attorney’s fees, she must file contemporaneous billing records showing the hours worked and hourly rate. If she seeks costs or expenses, she must provide proof for each item. The court stated that an untimely fee or cost submission will be treated as abandonment of that request.
Garcia must serve the required filings, her February 14 filings, the earlier orders, and this order on the defendants by February 25, 2025, and file proof of service. The defendants may respond by March 14, 2025. Judge Stewart D. Aaron stated that he intends to conduct the damages inquiry based only on written submissions. Any party seeking an evidentiary hearing must promptly explain why a written process is insufficient and identify the witnesses and evidence it would present.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.